.0' 



>: 



* N ^ 


' . 


/% 








^' 












# 


^^% ^. 










<^ '°-*' 










<J> 






'OV-" 


;^ 




>,'/">, 




■" 


. ...<,- 


■ o^ 



'M 






r^ 






A^^ 





'° **'% "•^^•" .•^•*'\ -^s^-" -*'"^- • 









■^ot-* 




•*^o*« ' 




.o-.^^,. 






"^ 










■y 



^ 






.^^j^/,;„ ^^ .^ ^^ 



' ' o . s ^ A 



"^ 






■:^fr^ 



0' 



-$• 



^'< '^o^ 



:^ 



TORIES 

OF 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

IN THE 
WAR OF THE REVOLUTION 



OTIS GRANT HAMMOND 
Superintendent of the New Hampshire Historical Society 



CONCORD. N. H. 

NEW HAMPSHIRE HISTORICAL SOCIETY 

1917 







D. Of D. 

APR 3 mi 



THE TORIES OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. 
By Otis G. Hammond. 

The Word "Tory," although it has been variously modi- 
fied by circumstances from its earhest use as applied to the 
outlawed Papists of Ireland in the reign of Charles II, down 
to its giving way to the present term, "Conservative," has 
always had a negative significance, an idea of opposition 
to political changes and a reverence for the existing order of 
government. To use a modern synonym, the Tories were 
always " stand-patters. " 

Since the Restoration, a Tory's political opponent has 
always been a Whig, the forefather of the Liberal of present- 
day English politics. The Whig was always the restless, 
ambitious, progressive element, eager for a change, without 
necessarily having established the fact that the change 
would be practical or beneficial to his party. 

During the Revolution, and since in America, as might 
be expected in view of the victory of the opposition, the 
word "Tory" acquired a peculiarly ignominious meaning 
which did not pertain to its earlier use. It came by com- 
mon consent to be used as almost synonymous with the 
word "traitor." Had the Tory party been victorious in 
the struggle the same significance would have been forced 
upon the word Whig. 

The word "Tory" was applied indiscriminately to all 
who refused or failed to support the Revolutionary move- 
ment, regardless of their reasons for so doing, or of the de- 
gree of activity they displayed against that movement. 

The Tories applied to themselves the name "Loyalist," 
a term respectable and admirable in its meaning, but not 
definite yer se. A man may be loyal to anything to which 
he has once attached himself, his country, his church, his 
superior officer, or his wife. The Loyalists were loyal to 
their King. Those who rebelled against the Crown con- 
sidered themselves loyal to their constitutional rights as 

3 



^# 



Englishmen, and to the new standards of government they 
had set up in order to maintain those rights. 

On the other side the name "Whig, " an old EngHsh polit- 
ical term, applied originally to the country party, as 
opposed to the Tory, the court or administration party, 
and the name "Patriot," as the colonist loved to call him- 
self, are equally lacking in definite and accurate meaning 
as applied to those Americans who rose in rebellion against 
the unjust and burdensome dejnands of George III and his 
Parliament. The men of both sides considered themselves 
patriots, and the word is quite as applicable, in its true 
meaning, to one side as to the other. In this discussion I 
shall venture the use of the terms Royalist and Revo- 
lutionist as substitutes for the names we have inherited 
from our forefathers, substitutes more accurate in their 
significance and entirely free from the false interpretations 
of hatred and strife. A Royalist is one who maintains his 
loyalty to his King through the stress of rebellion. A 
Revolutionist is one who has risen in arms against a con- 
stituted authority and won. 

In this present day we have no right to consider a man 
a Royalist unless we find in the official archives, or in con- 
temporary private records of good authority, some evidence 
of his preference for the continuation of the Royal jurisdic- 
tion in America, or some evidence of his having suffered for 
such opinions. The fact that a man was suspected, 
harassed, arrested, or even imprisoned does not necessarily 
prove that he was a true Royalist, but proves only that he 
was so considered at that time by some people. Trials on 
these charges were not held before a court of law, but before 
the provincial committee of safety or some local committee, 
and there was one in every town. The judges in these 
cases were not versed in the law, and there were no rules of 
evidence. Witnesses were allowed to say what they pleased, 
and hearsay evidence was freely admitted. 

Commitments to prison were made oftener on reasonable 
suspicion than on proven charges. But it is now too late 
to appeal any of these cases or to review the evidence, as 



comparatively little of it was ever recorded. In considering 
the whole class of Royalists in New Hampshire we must 
then, necessarily, include all who appear to have been under 
suspicion, bearing in mind the prejudices of the time, the 
excited state of the public mind, and the crude methods of 
trial "by which the defendants were judged. Of about 200 
suspected persons in New Hampshire only 76 were of suf- 
ficient guilt to be included in the proscription act, and to 
suffer the penalty of banishment, and against several of 
these there is no evidence on record except the fact that 
they had left the State. 

We must not consider the entire body of Royalists in 
New Hampshire as actively engaged in opposing the meas- 
ures of the Revolutionists. Many of them maintained a 
strict, dignified, and silent neutrality, watching the contest 
with disapproval, but obeying the laws established by the 
State in which they retained their abode, paying the taxes 
assessed upon them, and observing a careful regard for the 
highly excited and nervous state of public opinion. They 
were passive Royalists, and among their number we find 
many officials of the Royal government, members of the 
oldest, best educated, wealthiest, and most aristocratic 
families, clergymen of the Church of England and many of 
their communicants, men of the learned professions, and 
aged men who did not easily change the opinions and at- 
tachments of long life under the Crown. But harmless as 
their conduct was, these men did not escape the penalty of 
their convictions. With others more active they suffered 
prosecution by the authorities and persecution by unau- 
thorized and irresponsible individuals. In this respect the 
war of the Revolution was no different from any other war. 
Non-combatants residing in the enemy's country never 
lead a peaceful, happy, or prosperous life, and a memory of 
this unjust feature of warfare still rankles in the minds of 
thousands, north and south, who suffered insult, abuse, and 
financial ruin in the great War of the Rebellion. It is the 
inevitable result of the high tension which is always pro- 
duced by a conflict of arms, which sees things that are not, 



and magnifies things that are. The treatment the RoyaUsts 
received in America, though in many cases unjust and se- 
vere, was only what might fairly have been expected, and 
what many others have suffered before and since in similar 
circumstances. . It was only a normal price they had to 
pay for their unyielding principles, their minority, and their 
inability or failure to leave the field of action. 

In March, 1776, Congress deemed it necessary to ascertain 
the extent of Royalism in the colonies, and recommended 
that a test be submitted to the people. It was considered 
that those who signed it could be depended upon to support 
the Revolutionary movement, and those who did not sign 
it were to be disarmed and so made for a time incapable of 
effective opposition. This pledge was called the Associa- 
tion Test, and the text was as follows: 

"We, the Subscribers, do hereby solemnly engage and 
promise that we will to the utmost pf our Power, at the 
Risque of our Lives and Fortunes, with Arms oppose the 
Hostile Proceedings of the British Fleets and Armies, 
against the United American Colonies." 

By request of Congress this was presented for signature 
to all males above twenty-one years of age except lunatics, 
idiots, and negroes. Printed copies were sent to all the 
towns, and they were presented to the people for signature. 
Unfortunately not all the returns from New Hampshire 
towns have been preserved in our archives. 

The nearest census was that of 1773. At that time there 
were 180 granted towns in the State, but many of them were 
unincorporated, unorganized, and even unsettled. The 
census of 1773 includes returns from 136 towns, and gives 
the province a population of 72,092, with several towns 
omitted. The returns of the census of 1786 are from 138 
towns, the delinquents being far more numerous than in 
1773, and a population of 95,452 is shown for the State. 
So that we may fairly assume the population of the colony 
in 1776 at 75,000, dwelling in about 150 settled or partly 
settled towns. 

The 87 towns from which the Association Test returns 



have been preserved in the archives represented a total of 
50,682 of population, or 66 per cent, of the population of the 
colony at that time. These returns bear the signatures 
of 8,567 men, and the names of 781 who did not sign. One 
hundred and thirty-one of these refused because of religious 
scruples, conscience, or other reasons not hostile to the 
cause of the colonies, and 4 were reported absent, leaving 
646, or 6.9 per cent, of possible signers, who refused to sign 
without apparent reason other than an unwillingness to 
support the war. 

In Acworth, Antrim, Atkinson, Barnstead, Bow, Brook- 
line, Canaan, Candia, Canterbury, Chester, Concord, 
Conway, Dublin, Effingham, Enfield, Gilsum, Lebanon, 
Lempster, Loudon, Manchester, Meredith, Newport, North 
Hampton, Peterborough, Piermont, Rindge, Rye, Sea- 
brook, Sunapee, Surry, Wakefield, 31 towns, all signed. 

In Danville, Kingston, and Northwood all but 19 signed, 
and these declined for reasons of conscience, and 5 of these 
were Danville and Northwood Quakers. In Kingston one 
man, James Carruth, a Scotchman, "Declines obliging him- 
self to take up Arms against his Native Country but De- 
clares he will neaver take up Arms against America, & is 
willing to bear his Proportion of the publick taxes with his 
Townsmen." One man, Moses Welch, "refuses to take 
up arms & pleads Conscience for an excuse." Twelve men 
"Appear to be fearful that the Signing of this Declaration 
would in some measure be an infringement on their Just 
Rights & Libertys but they Appear to be Friendly to their 
Country & Several of them have Ventured their lives 
in the American Cause & the 3 last named Persons are now 
in the Army." 

Of those who refused to sign for reasons of religion or 
conscience 73 were Quakers, located in Danville 4, Kensing- 
ton 15, Northwood 1, Rochester 22, Weare 31. 

Other reasons for not signing are very interesting, amus- 
ing, some of them, and worthy of analysis. 

In Bedford the Rev. John Houston declined "firstly 
Because he did not apprehend that the Hon^^« committee 



8 

meant that ministers Should Take up arms as Being incon- 
sistant with their Ministerial Charge, 2°'^iy Because he was 
already confin'd to the County of Hillsborough, therefore he 
thinks he Ought to be set at liberty before he Should Sign 
the Sd obHgation, 3''*^'^ Because there is three men Belong- 
ing to his Family already Inhsted in the Continental army. " 

In Gilmanton, of 35 men refusing to sign, 21 state their 
reasons as follows: "there being some scruples on our minds 
we Cant Conscientiously sign it and we beg Leave to assign 
our Reasons which are as follows, viz., we agree and Consent 
to the Declaration of Independence on the British Crown, 
and we are willing to pay our proportion to the support of 
the United Colonies, but as to defend with arms, it is 
against our Religious principles and pray we may be Ex- 
cused. " 

In Kensington the selectmen, in returning the names 
of those who would not sign, after making a list of 15 names, 
said " So Far is Quakers as these two collums and What is to 
Come your honours may Call What you please." Then 
follow the names of five men who apparently did not stand 
high in the estimation of the selectmen. 

In Loudon all signed except "one or two that lived very 
much out of the way." The failure to obtain these signa- 
tures was by the indolence of the selectmen by their own 
confession. 

In Newcastle, of the 4 who are returned as refusing to 
sign, one, Richard Yeaton, Jr., is recorded as a soldier, and 
was probably at that time absent in the service. 

In Nottingham, of 25 non-signers, 10 are credited with 
having advanced money to hire men to go to Crown Point. 

In Richmond 12 men give as their reasons for not signing 
that "We do not Believe that it is the Will of God to take 
away the Lives of our fellow crators, not that We Come Out 
Against the Congress or the Amarican Liberties, but When 
Ever We are Convinct to the Contory We are Redy to join 
our Amarican Brieathen to Defend by Arms Against the 
Hostile Attempts of the British fleets and Armies." 



In Sandown "Samuel Stevens did not Sign but is Since 
gon into the war." 

The Test was not satisfactory to James Treadway of 
Canaan, nor were the ordinary rules of warfare severe enough 
to satiate his blood-thirsty patriotism. He signed, but 
imposed these conditions: "that no man who is taken a 
captive from the British forces be made an Officer or let be 
a Soldier in the Continental Army and 2'^ that Every 
American found & taken in armes against the United Colo- 
nies be immediately put to Death, and 3'^ that all & every 
of the British Troops that are Captivated by the Continen- 
tal forces by sea or land, or any other way taken Shall be 
kept in Prison or Close Confinement, & 4'^ that Every 
Commanding Officer or a Soldier, or any Person or Persons 
employed in any business whatsoever in the Continental 
Forces, who is found and proved to be a Traitor to the 
United Colonies in America be put to Death Immediately. " 

Upon whom he imposed these conditions, or whom he ex- 
pected to carry out his revised rules of war in order to secure 
his allegiance to the cause of independence does not appear. 

Moses Flanders of South Hampton also signed on con- 
dition that the acts or advice of the Continental Congress 
relating to minute-men be complied with. 

In the town of Temple the Association Test was construed 
literally as involving not only enlistment into the service, 
but extraordinary efforts in the field after such enlistment, 
and in town meeting the text of the document was so revised 
that the inhabitants might sign it without doing violence 
to their consciences. The selectmen said on their return of 
the Test, " We produced to the inhabitants of this Town in 
Town Meeting the Paper proposed by the Committee of 
Safety to be Sign"^ by the Inhabitants of this Colony. Few, 
if any of the Inhabitants were willing to engage & promis as 
there proposed, to oppose by Arms to the utmost of their 
power the hostile Attempts of y^ British Fleets & Armies — 
As this seem'd to the Inhabitants plainly to imply Some- 
thing far more than any Common Enlistment into the 
Service, over engaging as soldiers directly & during the 



10 

Continuance of the war, as well as exerting ouer selves 
faithfully when engaged: this, at least, being within the 
Compass of our power. But it did not appear to the in- 
habitants prudent or Necessary for any, or in any Degree 
lawfull for all thus to engage. • The Town directly adopted 
the Form of Association Sign'^ on this paper which they 
and we hope expresses all Required by the general Con- 
gress. " 

The revised form adopted was thus: 

"We the Subscribers, do hereby solemnly Profess our 
Intire willingness, at the Risque of our Lives and Fortunes, 
with Arms, to oppose the Hostile Attempts of the British 
Fleets, and Armies, against the United American Colonies, 
when Ever And to such A Degree as Such Attempts of 
Britain may Require." This was signed by all but three 
of those to whom it was presented. 

Refusing to sign the Association Test did not, alone, 
make a man a Royahst, nor did the signing of it make him 
in fact a Revolutionist. The Association Test was promul- 
gated for the purpose of ascertaining the sentiment of every 
man in the colonies who was qualified to bear arms. The 
declaration therein was not one of mere moral support to the 
cause of America, but was in its actual words a solemn prom- 
ise to resist the power of Great Britain by force of arms; and 
the signer pledged his fortune and even his life in defense of 
American liberty. It was a powerful obligation, almost 
an enlistment into the armies of the United Colonies. 
Many who signed it never saw a moment's service in field or 
garrison, although they had sworn to take up arms to resist 
the invasion which afterwards occurred. Many who re- 
fused to sign it have left on record no evidence of opposition, 
by word or deed, to the establishment of an independent 
government. Some who signed it were afterwards con- 
victed as RoyaUsts, and suffered various penalties inflicted 
by duly authorized officers of the State, by irresponsible 
gatherings of the people, or by the malice of individuals. 
Some who refused to sign it were undoubted patriots, and 



11 

supported the measures for carrying on the war to the 
extent of their moral and financial ability. 

The Association Test was presented to young and old, 
able-bodied and infirm alike, the lame, the halt, and the 
blind, and was generally regarded in the light in which it 
was circulated, as a test of allegiance or opposition to the 
Revolutionary movement. Those who refused to sign it did 
so for various reasons; some because they honestly believed 
that the colonies had no just cause for resorting to the ex- 
tremity of rebellion against the Crown; some because their 
love for the mother country and their reverence for English 
law and government caused them to look with horror upon 
any plan for disunion, or even any questioning of the justice 
and wisdom of Royal decrees; some because they read the 
Association Test literally, and were unable to perform its 
requirements, being either physically incapacitated for 
active service, or morally opposed to any act of war; some 
because they beheved that, although the colonies had just 
cause for opposing the measures of the home government, a 
resort to war would lead only to sure defeat and an increased 
burden of taxation and oppression ; some because of private 
pique and resentment of certain measures affecting their 
own personal welfare; some because of actual persecution 
by which they were afterwards driven into the British lines. 

Those who signed the Test were also actuated by various 
motives. There can be no question that most of them did 
so from purely patriotic impulses, fully convinced that the 
attitude of Parliament towards the colonies, from the Stamp 
Act down to the Boston Port Bill, was unjust and oppres- 
sive, and that they were denied the natural political liber- 
ties accorded to Englishmen in ^very other part of the King's 
dominions, and constitutionally guaranteed to all the King's 
subjects wherever they might dwell. But there were those 
who signed for mercenary reasons, and paid the taxes levied 
on their property for carrying on the war to the end that 
they might preserve their estates from the ruin which was 
more or less certain to be visited upon the hated minority. 
There were also those who yielded to threats, and petty but 



12 

continued and determined annoyances, which impressed their 
minds with the beHef that what was then but an annoyance 
was the forerunner of certain disaster. 

I find record evidence of guilt or suspicion of Royahst 
tendencies against about 200 men in New Hampshire. 
Many of these were prosecuted on suspicion founded on 
evidence of the most flimsy texture, and the formal charges 
brought against them were such as counterfeiting, or at- 
tempting to circulate counterfeit paper money, trying to 
spread small pox, or saying things, which spoken carelessly 
or in jest, gave their neighbors a long sought opportunity 
of revenge, or of posing before the authorities as zealous 
advocates of liberty. So that these figures do not represent 
the actual number of Royalists in New Hampshire, but the 
number of those who were, by any possible pretext, brought 
under oflficial suspicion. 

There was undoubtedly much counterfeiting in all the 
colonies, but there is no evidence that there was any con- 
certed or organized attempt at this practice among the 
Royalists, although individually they did, as Gen. Sullivan 
says, disparage the value of colonial bills of credit in com- 
parison with British or Spanish gold. The paper money of 
the Revolutionary period was crude in design, of many dif- 
ferent forms, each colony issuing its own series, and the 
Federal government still other series, and the business of 
counterfeiting was extremely easy and profitable. As the 
war progressed paper money became so plentiful as to be 
enormously depreciated from its face value in specie, and in 
the Continental Army depreciation pay rolls were made 
up every year for paying to the soldiers the lost value of 
their wages. In these circumstances it is hardly fair to 
charge the RoyaUsts with the responsibility for all the 
counterfeiting that was perpetrated in the colonies. As to 
the accusation that they attempted to spread the small pox 
in order to lessen the fighting force against Great Britain, it 
is too absurd and lacking in proof to be worth a moment's 
consideration. This was a hallucination natural to the 
time when small pox was one of the most dreaded diseases 



13 

of a military camp. Vaccination had not been discovered, 
but inoculation with true small pox was extensively prac- 
tised with the object of gaining immunity by having the dis- 
ease in a degree somewhat modified from the normal by 
medical care, and, if possible, under hospital conditions, from 
the beginning. 

In May, 1775, Phihp Bailey, James McMaster, and 
Thomas Achincloss, all of Portsmouth, were persuaded to 
sign recantations like this: 

" Whereas, I the subscriber, have, for a long series of time, 
both done and said many things that I am sensible has 
proved of great disadvantage to this Town, and the Con- 
tinent in general ; and am now determined bj^ my future con- 
duct to convince the publick that I will risk my life and 
interest in defense of the constitutional privileges of this 
Continent, and humbly ask the forgiveness of my friends 
and the Country in general for my past conduct." (Am. 
Arch., 4th ser., v. 2, p. 552.) 

May 15, 1775, the town of Portsmouth passed a vote to 
support the local committee of safety, and giving that com- 
mittee sole jurisdiction over any obnoxious persons who 
might flee to that town for asylum; and, in view of the im- 
pending scarcity of provisions, they advised the inhabitants 
to refrain from purchasing any lamb that might be killed 
before the first day of August, and from killing any lambs 
before that date; and recommended the use of fresh fish 
twice a week at least. (7 N. H. State Papers, 467.) 

Gen. John Sullivan, in a letter to Gen. Washington dated 
Oct. 29, 1775, in regard to the defences of Portsmouth 
harbor, speaks his mind in regard to the Royalists of that 
locality. He says : 

''That infernal crew of Tories, who have laughed at the 
Congress, despised the friends to liberty, endeavoured to 
prevent fortifying this harbour, and strove to hurt the 
credit of the Continental money, and are yet endeavouring 
it, walk the streets here with impunity, and will, with a 
sneer, tell the people in the streets that all our liberty-poles 
will soon be converted into gallows, I must entreat your 



14 

Excellency to give some directions what to do with those 
persons, as I am fully convinced that, if an engagement was 
to happen, they would, with their own hands, set fire to 
the town, expecting a reward from the Ministry for such 
hellish service. Some who have for a long time employed 
themselves in ridicuhng and discouraging those who were 
endeavouring to save the Town, have now turned upon me 
and are now flying from one street to another, proclaiming 
that you gave me no authority or license to take ships to 
secure the entrance of the harbor, or did anything more 
than send me here to see the Town reduced to ashes if our 
enemies thought proper. Sir, I shall await your directions 
respecting those villians, and see that they are strictly com- 
plied with by your Excellency's most obedient servant. 

J. S." 

(Am. Archives, 4th ser. v. 3, p. 1252.) 

To which Gen. Washington replied more temperately 
Nov. 12, 1775: 

"I therefore desire that you will delay no time in causing 
the seizure of every officer of Government at Portsmouth 
who have given pregnant proofs of their unfriendly dis- 
position to the cause we are engaged in; and when you have 
seized them, take the opinion of the Provincial Congress or 
Committee of Safety in what manner to dispose of them in 
that Government. I do not mean that they should be 
kept in close confinement. If either of those bodies should 
incline to send them to any of the interior Towns, upon 
their parole not to leave them till released, it will meet with 
my concurrence. 

"For the present, I avoid giving you the like order in 
respect to the Tories in Portsmouth, but the day is not far 
off when thej^ will meet with this or a worse fate, if there 
is not considerable reformation in their conduct. Of this 
they may be assured." 

In order to accurately ascertain the pubUc sentiment in 
regard to the Royalists we must go to some contemporary 
record to which the public had free access for the registration 
of its opinions. There is no such record but the newspapers. 



15 

The New Hampshire Gazette, founded at Portsmouth in 
1756, and still issued weekly, now the oldest newspaper of 
continuous publication in the United States, gives us a 
fair idea of the popular estimate of the Tory. A few ex- 
tracts are well worth repeating. 

In the issue of Sept. 21, 1776, is an article signed "Na- 
mora, " a name which is easily seen to be "A Roman" 
spelled backwards. Namora says: 

"It's astonishing to see daily, the insults offered by the 
Tories, and unnoticed by the Committee, in a more partic- 
ular manner, since the news of the skirmish on Long Island ; 
on the first report, they had their meeting and a dinner 
provided to congratulate each other on the importance of 
the day; and, if common fame speaks truth, they have their 
particular toasts on such occasions; their significant nods 
and smiles at each other as they pass by, and in their very 
countenances it is as plain to be seen as the sun in its merid- 
ian. They have the effrontery to assert that it is much 
worse than reported; that it's so bad that the sons of Liberty 
are afraid to let it be known, least the people should be 
discouraged. Is not this intollerable? It's a matter of fact 
that they have the first news on every event, and that they 
propagate every intelligence they receive, taking care to 
calculate it, so as to serve their own turn; it's beyond a 
matter of doubt that they keep up a secret correspondence 
thro' the colonies in order to comfort one another, to keep 

up their sinking spirits, and to propagate falsehoods." 
* * * 

The following sarcastic reply to Namora was found in 
the hallway of the Gazette office, and the editor printed it 
the following week as a curiosity: 

"Well done Namora, you talk sence, you preach liberty, 
real genuine liberty, downright, alamode liberty, by G-d! 
I must observe, however, that I was at first a good deal 
alarmed on discovering your design of abolishing looks and 
nods, those dear conveyors of our secret meaning; but when 
I found you only meant significant ones, and that out of 
the abundance of your great goodness and impartiahty you 



16 

had confined it to tories, I was immediately reconcil'd to it, 
and discovered, by the help of certain political microscopic 
glasses, that it tended to the public good. 

"It is, indeed, no less than alarming, that these damn'd 
tories have the impudence to meet, speak, eat, and drink 
together as other men do; yea, they have the effrontery, in 
open violation of the laws both of God and man, to cast at 
each other, as they pass, their significant looks and nods; 
intolerable! and still they go unnoticed by the committee; 
amazing! 'Tis a disgrace to the state to allow of such 
significant looks and nods, and if the legislative body of 
these states have not, in their great wisdom, already pro- 
vided a punishment adequate to the diabolical nature of so 
black a crime (which hardly admits of a doubt), I think the 
honorable committee of this town, if they desire that the 
trumpet of fame should sound their praises to after ages, 
cannot have a fairer opportunity of immortallizing their 
names than by enacting laws against such treasonable and 
unheard of practices; which would at once discover their 
patriotic zeal for their country, their wise and god-like pene- 
tration into the nature and cause of things, and their un- 
erring knowledge of mankind, who carry on daily the most 
villainous conspiracies in no other language than looks and 
nods; 0, most shocking! What dreadful ills have not been 
done by noding? I humbly think a significant look ought 
to be punished by a burning out of the optics, and a nod by 
severing off the offender's head from the unoffending body; 
this would be going justly and regularly to work; it would 
be removing causes, as the surest way to prevent effects. 

" And now, Mr. Printer, in case you or any of your readers, 
should be so abandoned to torj'ism, or so full of that brutish 
feeling, humanity, as to think the above hints toward 
enacting laws for the regulation of tories are too severe, 
even for that infernal set of beings; or, if either of you should 
be so unwise or unacquainted with the unbounded power 
of committees, as to imagine that (though that same cum- 
bersome feeling above mentioned, could be stifled) yet 
these laws are in their nature chimerical, wild, and not 



17 

reducible to practice, and consequently that my worthy 
friend Namora (who to tell you the truth is no other than 
a double-headed monster, bred behind a Spring hill counter) 
and myself are wicked, designing devils, & foolish withall, 
I hereby certify & declare to all men, that tho' I maj- be a 
foolish devil, yet, I am neither a wicked or designing one, 
and that these two last epithets, with all the detestable 
ideas attending them, are only applied to my double-headed 
friend ; this being only a kind of explanatory supplement to 
this piece, I am 

(signed) What you will" 

In the Gazette of Jan. 14, 1777, appeared another expres- 
sion of opinion entitled 

''To the Public. 

"Is it not amazing, astonishing to every thinking mind 
at this Period, when nothing but Rapine and Murder can 
Satiate the Lust of those Infernal Devils sent among us 
by the Infamous Tyrant of Britain, that there can still be 
found a single Person who yet retains that odious name of a 
Tory, when they see (notwithstanding their much boasted 
Loyalty) their wives & Daughters are not exempt from the 
Ravaging Cruelties of those Wretches, any more than those 
of the Rebels (so called) ; by which Treatment alone, (though 
void of all Principle) one might reasonably expect it would 
exasperate and Excite them to such a degree of Resentment 
and Revenge, that all their pretended Loyalty would in- 
stantly vanish, and with Heart and Hand join their much 
Injured Country-men in sheathing their Swords in the 
Breasts of such Brutal Animals; which would afford much 
more consolation to a noble Mind than to sit down, tamely 
submitting to the Murderous Decrees issued by a vile. Des- 
potic Tyrant, to be executed by the very dregs of H-11. 
Oh! it makes my very blood boil with Indignation at the 
thoughts of such horrid Deeds, and much more when I 
reflect that there are many such shameful Wretches among 
us at this late Hour, that would sell their God, their Country, 
their Wives, their Children, and all that is near and dear to 

2 



18 

them. Pray, what is the reward due to such Monsters? 
Do they deserve the Lenity shown them by their Townsmen? 
Don't they rather deserve the halter? Nay, is not even 
that too good for them? Can any infliction of Punishment 
(though ever so severe) be called too Cruel? Upon the 
whole, what ought to be done in order to Rid us of such 
Vermin? Suppose I should suggest a mode, and that is to 
provide some kind of a Bark, and, after putting on board 
some Provisions, Set them a Drift, & make it death for any 
of them ever to land on smy Part of the American Shore 
that is" Inhabited by Freemen, which in my opinion would 
be the best and most effectual method, and much milder 
than such Slaves could reasonably expect. 

(Signed) An Enemy to Tories. " 

May 31, 1777, the Gazette editorially suggested that 
they be "taken up, sent and kept under a Strong Guard 
(at their own expense, so far as their Estates will go), in 
some of the New Townships, there to continue during the 
War." 

Feb. 18, 1777, the Gazette printed 

"A Whisper to the Folks called Tories. 

" As you have given Bonds not to disturb the Peace of 
the Town, nor do anything directly or indirectly against 
the American Cause, would advise, that you keep in your 
own Houses as much as possible, and not assemble together 
in the Street or elsewhere in too great a number, as that 
will be look'd upon as an indirect Method taken against 
the public Good, and subject your Persons to insults. It 
would also be prudent for those who desire to preserve 
the Name of staunch Whigs, not to join their Assemblies 
so frequently in the open Streets, as that gives a sanction 
to their evil Doings. The Court has acquited them on 
conditions, therefore pass them with silent contempt, and 
let their own guilty reflections be their Punishment. It 
would also be proper that whifling Whigs should be distin- 
guished, and assemble together, as their mixing with either 
of the above is taking an unfair Advantage, and conse- 



19 

quently brings a Reflection on both Parties, as they must 
be considered by the Public a Species beneath the Notice 
of either Class." 

July 19, 1777, the House of Representatives appointed a 
committee to report some method for taking firearms from 
such persons in the State as refused to take up arms against 
the enemies of the American States. The same day the 
committee recommended that the colonels of the several 
regiments of militia be empowered to disarm the disaffected 
persons, and that the arms so taken be appraised by two 
disinterested men, and be paid for unless returned. The 
recommendation was adopted, but we find no record of 
further action on this plan, although here and there a few 
Royalists were disarmed by local committees of safety. 

A curious incident of the time is the suspicion of the 
Quakers. Aug. 28, 1777, the Federal Congress stated that 
there was reason to beUeve that Quakers in different States 
were carrying on a treasonable correspondence, and recom- 
mended that the States investigate the matter by seizing 
and examining their records and papers, and that any doc- 
uments of a political nature so found be forwarded to Con- 
gress. November 8 following the New Hampshire House of 
Representatives appointed a committee to apply to clerks 
of the Quaker societies in Dover, Hampton Falls, Seabrook, 
Brentwood, Weare, and other towns for the privilege of 
examining their records, and gave the committee power 
to break and enter in case access was refused. There is no 
evidence on record that any incriminating documents were 
found among the Quakers of New Hampshire. 

Officially it was intended from the beginning that there 
should be no persecution of Royalists, and no action of any 
kind against them except by due process of law. June 18, 
1776, the Federal Congress resolved "that no man in these 
colonies charged with being a Tory, or unfriendly to the 
cause of American liberty, be injured in his person or 
property, or in any manner whatever disturbed, unless the 
proceeding against him be founded on an order of this 
Congress, or the assembly, convention, council, or com- 



20 

mittee of safety of the colony, or committee of inspection 
and observation of the district where he resides; provided 
that this resolution shall not prevent the apprehending 
any person found in the commission of some act destructive 
of American liberty, or justly suspected of a design to commit 
such act, and intending to escape, and bringing such person 
before proper authority for examination and trial." 

January 17, 1777, the New Hampshire House of Repre- 
sentatives passed a resolution giving all disaffected persons 
three months in which to leave the State unmolested, with 
their families and effects, with the privilege of selling their 
property before departure; and requiring them to register 
their intentions with the selectmen of their respective towns 
thirty days before leaving; and these registrations were to 
be transmitted to the Secretary of State. This did not 
become operative as law, the Council neglecting to concur, 
but it is valuable as showing the fair and reasonable inten- 
tions of the representative body of the people. The same 
day the Council passed an act defining treason and mis- 
prision of treason, and providing a penalty of death without 
benefit of clergy; and an act for punishing lesser offences of 
a treasonable nature, such as discouraging enlistments, 
speaking against the cause of the States, and spreading 
false reports. 

June 19, 1777, an act was passed authorizing the Com- 
mittee of Safety to issue warrants to sheriffs, deputy-sher- 
iffs, or any other person, for the commitment to jail of "any 
person whom the said Committee of Safety shall deem the 
Safety of the Common Wealth requires should be restrained 
of his personal Liberty, or whose Enlargement within this 
state is dangerous thereto," there to remain without bail 
until discharged by order of the committee or the General 
Court; and the committee was given power of examination 
and trial in such cases. 

November 29 an act was passed to prevent the transfer 
of property by persons apprehended on suspicion, and for 
securing the lands of those who had gone over to the enemy, 
or might do so, and of those who resided in Great Britain. 



21 

These acts were all preHminarj', and show the gradual 
development of a hostile sentiment in the legislature and 
among the people. 

The Proscription Act, or act of banishment, was passed 
Nov. 19, 1778, and bore the title "An act to prevent the 
return to this state of certain persons therein named, and of 
others who have left or shall leave this state, or either of the 
United States of America, and have joined or shall join the 
enemies thereof." Seventy-six men are named in the act, 
first of whom was Gov. John Wentworth. and they are 
described as having left this State and joined the enemies 
thereof, "thereby not only basely deserting the cause of 
liberty and depriving these states of their personal services 
at a time when they ought to have afforded their utmost 
assistance in defending the same against the invasions of a 
cruel enemy, but abetting the cause of tyranny, and man- 
ifesting an enimical disposition to said states, and a design 
to aid the enemies thereof in their wicked purposes." 

An analysis of this Ust of 76 outlawed Royalists is inter- 
esting, especially if we may consider it as fairlj- representa- 
tive of the whole body of Royahsts in New Hampshire, 
fairly indicative of the classes and the proportions of each 
that we may find in the entire number. In this fist we find 
30 "Esquires" or gentlemen (using social distinctions of that 
time rather than this), 1 mihtary officer, 5 mariners, 4 physi- 
cians, 8 merchants, 5 traders, 19 yeomen or farmers, 1 rope- 
maker, 1 post-rider, 1 printer, and 1 clerk or minister. 
Tliirty-three of these were citizens of Portsmouth; London- 
derry and Dunbarton had 6 each, Keene 5, Charlestown 
4, HolHs 3, Newmarket, Amherst, Alstead and Hinsdale, 4 
each, and Pembroke, Exeter, Concord, Merrimack. New 
Ipswich, Francestown, Peterborough, Nelson, Winchester. 
Rindge, and Claremont 1 each. 

The geographical distribution covers very nearly the 
whole of the State that was under settlement at that time, 
and seems to defy the appUcation of any particular theory 
of locaUty. It extended from the Atlantic Ocean to the 
Connecticut River, and from the ^Massachusetts Une to 



^ 



22 

Claremont on the north. There was no large number in 
any one town except Portsmouth, which held nearly half 
the entire Ust. This fact was perfectly natural to the place 
which had been the seat of the Royal government for nearly 
a century. From a social point of view it will be noticed 
that 30 of the 76 belonged to the class of gentlemen, and 5 
others were of the learned professions. The penalty pro- 
vided in the act for a voluntary return to the State was for 
a first offense transportation to British territory, and for 
a second offense death. 

The Confiscation Act followed eight days later, or Nov. 
28, 1778, and in it were named 25 of those included in the 
Proscription Act, and three others not previously men- 
tioned. They were described as men who "have, since the 
commencement of hostilities between Great Britain and the 
United States of America, left this and the other United 
States, and gone over to and joined the enemys thereof, and 
have, to the utmost of their power, aided, abetted, and 
assisted the said enemys in their cruel designs of wresting 
from the good people of said states their Libertys, civil and 
religious, and of taking from them their property, and con- 
verting the same to the use of their said enemys." All 
their property in New Hampshire was declared forfeited to 
the use of the State. 

It will be noticed that the Proscription Act banished 
those who had left the state of their abode and joined the 
enemy, whether in the United Colonies or elsewhere; but 
the Confiscation Act seized the estates of those only who 
had departed from the country, sought refuge on British 
soil, and become perniciously active in opposition to the 
Revolutionary government. This will account for the 
difference in numbers affected by those respective acts. 

Belknap says "In these acts no distinction was made 
between those persons who had withdrawn themselves from 
the state by a sense of their duty; those who were, in fact, 
British subjects, but occasionally resident here; those who 
had absconded through timidity; and those who had com- 
mitted crimes against express law, and had fled from justice. 



23 

No conditional offer of pardon was made; no time was 
allowed for any to return and enter into the service of the 
country; but the whole were put indiscriminately into one 
black-list, and stigmatised as having basely deserted the 
cause of liberty and manifested a disposition inimical to the 
State, and a design to aid its enemies in their wicked pur- 
poses. " 

Confiscated estates aggregated a large sum in original 
value, but were greatly diminished by a period of bad 
management and neglect while in the hands of trustees. 
These values, like all others, were also affected by the almost 
ruinous depreciation of paper money, and the net income 
to the State from all confiscated property was very small. 

It is not now necessary to argue the apparent conflict of 
these laws with the constitutional principle that no part of 
a man's property shall be taken from him without his con- 
sent, or due process of law. The constitution of 1776, 
which was in effect at the time of the passage of these laws, 
was a temporary enactment, intended, as stated in the pre- 
amble, to continue only "during the present unhappy and 
unnatural contest with Great Britain." It was a mere 
skeleton of a form of government, and it stood on a pre- 
amble and not a bill of rights. Government under it was 
provisional, and there was no constitutional government in 
New Hampshire until June, 1784, when our permanent con- 
stitution went into operation. 

In his opinion in Dow v. Railroad, 67 N. H. 1, Judge 
Doe says: "Under the non-legislative reign of Parliament, 
and the pre-constitutional government of this State, there 
was no limit of governmental power to be decided or con- 
sidered by the court. The acts of banishment and confis- 
cation, passed and enforced by the provisional government 
of the Revolution, were as valid as the habeas corpus act." 
There was, then, no bar to the passage and execution of these 
laws by a government whose power had no constitutional 
limitations, but the act of confiscation was not in accord 
with the principle of the inviolability of private property 
which the fathers wished to embody in the constitution 



24 

adopted in 1783; and at that time these acts were in force, 
and many confiscated estates were still in the process of 
settlement by the courts. In order, therefore, to re-affirm, 
establish, and definitely constitutionalize these acts, it was 
provided in the constitution that "nothing herein contained, 
when compared with the twenty-third article in the bill of 
rights [retroactive legislation], shall be construed to affect 
the laws already made respecting the persons or estates of 
absentees." This subject has been discussed by the court 
in Opinion of the Justices, 66 N. H. 629; Orr v. Quimby, 
54 N. H. 591; Dow v. Railroad, 67 N. H. 1 ; State v. Express 
Co., 60 N. H. 219, and in other cases. 

In 1777 the air was full of tales of Royalist plots in 
various parts of the State for doing all sorts of monstrous 
things. The Committee of Safety, writing to the delegates 
in Congress May 10, announced the discovery of several 
combinations in Hillsborough and Rockingham counties and 
the western parts of Massachusetts; a plan for organizing, 
arming, and joining the enemy; a hogshead of entrenching 
tools hidden under a barn in Hollis; and unusually large 
supplies of liquors, provisions, and arms in the vicinity of 
Groton, Massachusetts. The committee adds "Interest- 
ing Matters are opening, and it is probable that all our 
Gaols will soon be filled with these more than monsters 
in the Shape of men, who would wreck there Native Coun- 
try in hopes to share some of the Plunder." 

In January, 1777, on the occasion of sending some pris- 
oners of war to Rhode Island, Timothy Walker, Jr., of 
Concord wrote to Col. Nicholas Gilman warning him that it 
was "vehemently suspected that our Tory Gentry in this 
part of the Country" were designing to send information 
to Howe's army by the prisoners. The Committee of 
Safety instructed Capt. John Haven, in command of the 
guard, to search the prisoners with the utmost care, and 
after examination to allow no man to address or approach 
tliem before embarkation. 

In September the Committee of Safety in Plymouth re- 
ported the discovery of a suspected Royalist meeting. 



25 

They said "The Place and some Persons being Suspected, 
a Secret Spy was Sent out in order to make Discovery, who 
upon Return Reports That at & near the House of Brion 
Sweeneys Northerly of Great Squara Pond in the Town of 
Newholderness (a place very remote from any other humane 
Settlement) was discovered Sundry Persons who by their 
number & Dress did not appear to be the proper Inhabitants 
of that place (no man in that family being Grown up but 
Sweeny himself)." 

In Claremont were a considerable number of genuine 
Royalists, men who sincerely believed the colonies were 
wrong, and who were willing to aid the King's forces to the 
extent of their ability, even at some risk of discovery and 
its well-known consequences. There never was in New 
Hampshire any organization of Royalists, either for the 
purpose of armed resistance to the Revolutionists, or for 
giving indirect aid to the Crown. In some States, however, 
notably New York, and consequently Vermont, because of 
the powerful New York influences which prevailed through 
all the territory between the Connecticut and the Hudson 
Rivers, the Royalists were numerous and strong enough 
to organize in various ways and for various purposes. 
Claremont may have been affected by a combination of 
two circumstances, proximity to a locality in which Royal- 
ists were bold, separated only by the span of the river, and 
the existence within its borders of an organized parish of 
the Church of England, whose members, though in the 
minority, were active and ardent in their support of the 
little church they had planted so far up in the frontier wild- 
erness. To these men, strong in their belief in a united 
church and state, any attack on the body politic of England 
was almost in the same degree an attack on the church. 

There was in Claremont a hiding place for Royalists, 
one of a chain of rendezvous extending from New York to 
Canada. It was known as Tory Hole, and was protected 
on three sides by a swamp covered by a thick growth of 
alders, and on the fourth side by a steep bank about 30 
feet high. Here meetings were held in safety for a long 



26 

time, and travellers were sheltered and fed and passed on 
their journey. The existence of such a resort was long 
suspected by the Revolutionary party, but it was not dis- 
covered until late in the year 1780. Two men who were 
found there escaped by swimming across the Connecticut 
River and taking refuge on the top of Ascutney Mountain, 
where they were captured while asleep; and, being armed, 
were held as prisoners of war, sent to Boston, and after- 
wards exchanged. 

In December, 1775, twenty-five men of Claremont were 
brought before a joint committee of safety from the towns 
of Claremont, Hanover, Lebanon and Cornish for examina- 
tion, being suspected of Royalism. Among them were Rev. 
Ranna Cossitt, rector of the church, and Samuel Cole, 
schoolmaster and catechist under him, and most of the 
others were members of Mr. Cossitt's church. Mr. Cossitt, 
on examination, said "I believe the American Colonies, in 
their dispute with Great Britain, which has now come to 
blood, are unjust, but will not take up arms either against 
the King or country, as my office and circumstances are 
such that I am not obliged thereto. I mean to be on the 
side of the administration, and I had as leave any person 
should call me a damned Tory as not, and take it as an 
affront if people don't call me a Tory, for I verily beUeve 
the British troops will overcome by the greatness of their 
power and justice of their cause." 

The joint committee disarmed all the persons examined, 
and recommended to the Provincial Congress that Capt. 
Benjamin Sumner, Samuel Cole, and Rev. Ranna Cossitt, 
as chief advisers and dictators, be placed in confinement. 
They were brought to trial in Charlestown April 10, 1776, 
and were sentenced to be confined to the town limits of 
Claremont until the close of the war unless they prom- 
ised good behavior, Capt. Sumner being required to give 
bonds instead of promises for his release. They were 
forbidden to be seen together except at public worship, 
but Mr. Cossitt was allowed such liberty as was necessary 



27 

for the performance of his ministerial office in preaching, 
baptizing, and visiting the sick. 

Col. John Peters wrote from Quebec July 20, 1778, to his 
brother, Rev. Samuel Peters, in London, as follows: 

"Rev. Dr. Wheelock, President of Dartmouth College 
in New Hampshire, in conjunction with Deacon Bayley, 
Mr. Morey, and Mr. Hurd, all justices of the peace, put an 
end to the Church of England in this state so early as 1775. 
They seized me, Capt. Peters, and all the judges of Cumber- 
land and Gloucester, the Rev. Mr. Cossitt and Mr. Cole, 
and all the church people for 200 miles up the river and 
confined us in close gaols, after beating and drawing us 
through water and mud. Here we lay some time, and were 
to continue in prison until we abjured the King and signed 
the league and covenant. Many died, one of which was 
Capt. Peter's son. We were removed from the gaol and 
confined in private houses at our own expense. Capt. 
Peters and myself were guarded by twelve rebel soldiers 
while sick in bed, and we paid dearly for this honor; and 
others fared in like manner. I soon recovered from my in- 
disposition, and took the first opportunity and fled to 
Canada, leaving Cossitt, Cole, Peters, Willis, Porter, Sumner, 
Paptin, etc., in close confinement where they had misery, 
insults, and sickness enough. My flight was in 1776, since 
which my family arrived at Montreal, and inform me that 
many prisoners died; that Capt. Peters had been tried by 
court martial and ordered to be shot for refusing to lead his 
company against the King's troops. He was afterwards 
reprieved but still in gaol, and that he was ruined both in 
health and property; that Cossitt and Cole were alive when 
they came away, but were under confinement, and had more 
insults than any of the loyalists, because they had been 
servants of the Society^ which, under pretense (as the rebels 
say) of propagating religion, had propagated loyalty, in 
opposition to the liberties of America. " 

Mr. Cossitt himself wrote from New York June 6, 1779, 
to the Secretary of the Society for the Propagation of the 
1 Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. 



28 

Gospel: "I arrived in this city last Sunday by permission, 
with a flag, and am to return in a few days. I trust the 
Society cannot be unacquainted with the persecution the 
loyalists have endured in New England. I have been, by 
the committee, confined as a prisoner in the town of Clare- 
mont ever since the 12th of April, 1775, yet God has pre- 
served my life from the people. I have constantly kept up 
public service, without any omi.ssions, for tlie King and 
royal family, and likewise made use of the prayer for the 
high court of parliament, and the prayer to be used in time of 
war and tumults; have administered the Lord's Supper on 
every first Sunday in the month, except two Sundays that 
we could not procure any wine. The numbers of my 
parishoners and communicants in Claremont are increased, 
but I have been cruelly distressed with fines for refusing 
entirely to fight against the King. In sundry places 
where I used to officiate, the church jxiople are all dwindled 
away. Some have fled to the King's army for protection, 
some were banished, and many died." 

Mr. Cossitt remained at his post in Claremont until 1785, 
when he was sent as a missionary' by the Society for the 
Propagation of the Gospel to Sidney, Cape Breton. He 
died there in 1815. 

Rev. Dr. Hubbard, sometime rector of Trinity church, 
Claremont, in his centennial address of 1871, said 

"We can hardly estimate aright at this distant day, and 
in the midst of circumstances so greatly changed, the posi- 
tion in which churchmen found themselves at the breaking 
out of the Revolutionary war. The period of religious tol- 
eration had not arrived, and the spirit of the ancient con- 
tests which had raged for centuries in the Old World, and 
in a measure spent their force, was here revived in all its 
intense bigotry and malignity. It was not the fear of such 
men as Samuel Cole and Ranna Cossitt, in a civil point of 
view, that led to their cruel persecution and abuse. Doubt- 
less they were loyal to the government, and most warmly 
attached to the Church of England. But they were 
peaceable, law-abiding men. There was no treachery or 



29 

sedition in them. Their own principles taught them to 
obey the powers that be. While the great struggle was 
going on they could not be hired or driven to take up arms 
against the King; neither would they take up arms, nor 
plot nor conspire against the lives and happiness of their 
fellow-citizens. They desired to remain quiet and await 
the decision of Providence. And when that decision came, 
if it were adverse to their hopes, they would be as faithful 
and obedient to the new government as they had been to 
the old." 

The only other Protestant Episcopal Church in New 
Hampshire at this time was Queen's Chapel of Portsmouth, 
now called St. John's church. Its rector was Rev. Arthur 
Browne, a faithful and beloved priest and a man of spotless 
character. His attitude during the war was that of an 
absolute neutral. There is no record of any charge or 
suspicion against him. His son-in-law, however, Major 
Robert Rogers, commander of Rogers's Rangers in the 
French and Indian wars, was one of the most active Royal- 
ists, as well as one of the most famous soldiers of New 
England. 

In January, 1777, fifteen citizens of Portsmouth were 
arrested by the town committee of safety on suspicion, and 
sent to the state committee at Exeter under guard. Among 
them were James Sheafe^ Jonathan Warner, Peter and 
John Peirce, Isaac Rindge, and Nathaniel Treadwell, mem- 
bers of some of the most respected and influential families 
of Portsmouth in the days of the province. Among them, 
also, was John Stavers, keeper of the Earl of Halifax inn, a 
tavern which had been a favorite resort of the officers of 
the provincial government and of travellers from England. 
The place was naturally held in suspicion by the Sons of 
Liberty, and was once raided and nearly reduced to ruins. 
It was commonly thought that Royalist meetings were held 
there, and many threats were made against the house and 
its keeper. It is quite probable that these fifteen suspected 
persons, who seem to have been all gathered in at once, and 
among whom was the inn-keeper himself, were in attend- 



30 

ance upon one of these meetings when arrested. Twelve of 
them were released under bonds of £500 each "not to sav- 
or do anything directly or Indirectly in anywise contrary 
or in Opposition to the American Cause now contending 
for, * * * or the United States of America for & during 
y« Term of one year next coming, and further advise that 
they be very careful and cautious in these times of jealousy 
& danger, in giving any occasion of mistrust to any person 
Whatsomevcr of their dissatisfaction to the common cause. 
The Committee Ukewise recommend that People of every 
rank and denomination in this State be careful in detecting 
all persons speaking or conspiring against this or any of the 
United American States, and cause them to be prosecuted 
according to the Laws made & published for that purpose." 

So many Royalists were committed to jail that an under- 
standing of the entire subject cannot be complete without a 
knowledge of the character of the places in which they were 
confined. Each county had its jail, and Rockingham had 
two, one at Portsmouth, old, insecure, and not much used, 
and one at Exeter. The records preserve to our use a very 
good description of the Hillsborough county jail at Amherst, 
second only to that at Exeter in importance during the 
Revolution. Probably the other jails did not greatly differ 
from this in the main points of construction. 

Built in 1772, it was 34 feet long, 26 feet wide, and 17 feet 
high, divided into two stories, probably 9 feet and 8 feet 
respectively. There were four rooms for the prisoners, each 
11 feet square, two on each floor, but the jail-keeper's rooms 
were 14 feet long. The entry was 7 feet wide, opening into 
the jailer's apartments on one side, and the prisoner's 
quarters on the other. There was no cellar except under 
the end of the building occupied by the jailer. The posts, 
sills, and plates were of white oak, and the rest of the timber 
was chestnut, and the appropriation for the entire work 
was £200. The fence was 8 feet high, well spiked, and 
stood 10 feet from the building on all sides. The new jail 
was occupied in October of the same year, and at the same 
time an addition 18 feet in length was ordered to be built 



31 

on the jailer's end of the building. On the 5th of November 
a stove for use in the prison was voted by the court of 
general sessions. Later in the month the sheriff protested 
that the jail was not secure, and it was ordered that the 
prisoners' rooms be lathed and plastered, and that iron 
bars, 3 inches apart, be set in the window of the lower north 
room. But laths and plaster were not effective in prevent- 
ing escapes, and in August, 1773, two good locks and window 
shutters for the same room were provided. Joseph Kelley, 
who had escaped once and threatened to do so again, was 
put in chains. In November even the doors had to be 
fastened, and two locks and a padlock were ordered; the 
fence, also, was insufficient, and the court ordered it to be 
built 12 feet high and moved to 20 feet from the west and 
north sides of the building. Even this failed to prevent com- 
munication with the prisoners from the outside. In De- 
cember, 1774, the sheriff went to the court in despair, and 
represented that his locks and hinges were all broken, many 
of the doors smashed, and that a large hole was cut through 
the floor in the north room, and that all his prisoners were 
gone. The court responded with orders for the repair of the 
building in the best and strongest possible manner, but 
two years later, fourteen New York Royalists confined there 
broke jail and escaped in one night. 

In 1777, statements being made to the Committee of 
Safety that the prisoners in Exeter jail had become very 
sickly on account of bad air, the keeper of the jail, Capt. 
Simeon Ladd, was instructed July 12 to permit the pris- 
oners, one half the number at a time, to come out of close 
confinement into the two front chambers and to remain 
there under double guard from 6 o'clock in the morning until 
6 o'clock in the afternoon. A fire was allowed in the lower 
jail from Dec. 13, 1777, to May 10, 1778, and the allowance 
of wood was half a cord a week. Apparently no fire was 
kept on the second floor. The following winter, however, 
the committee was more merciful, and allowed fires both 
up-stairs and down, and ordered them to be lighted as early 
as Nov. 4. Complaints from the prisoners of sickness on 



32 

account of foul air, unsanitary conditions, and vermin were 
very numerous. 

The number of Royalists actually confined in prison was 
far exceeded by those sentenced to certain limitations. The 
common penalty in the less serious cases was confinement to 
the bounds of the town in which the defendant lived. Some- 
times this restriction was enlarged to include an adjoining 
town or two, and occasionally the whole county; and some 
were forbidden to leave their estates except to attend public 
worship. 

The first man in New Hampshire to suffer for his suspected 
Royalist tendencies was Benjamin Thompson of Concord, 
afterwards Count Rumford, who was driven from his nat- 
ural allegiance to the colonies to seek protection within the 
British lines by continued unreasonable persecution, in- 
spired and promoted by private jealousy and malice. Mr. 
Thompson had come from Woburn, Massachusetts, his 
native town, to Concord, New Hampshire, in 1772 to teach 
school. He had not a college education, but was possessed 
of a natural love for art. music, and especially for natural 
science. Before he had been in Concord six months he 
married Sarah, widow of Benjamin Rolfe and daughter 
of Rev. Timothy Walker, a woman of many charms, for she 
had youth, beauty, family, and the largest and finest estate 
in town. Immediately after his marriage he became ac- 
quainted with Gov. Wentworth, and found in him a man of 
charming manners, culture, wealth, and a taste for science 
which enabled them at once to meet on common ground. 
Mr. Thompson's errand to the Governor was to propose a 
survey of the White Mountains, and to his great delight the 
Governor not only thought well of the plan but offered the 
loan of some valuable instruments and books he had in his 
house at Wolfeborough, and proposed to go with the party 
himself if public business should allow. It is not strange 
that such flattering interest and attentions from the Royal 
Governor to the boy, for he was then only 20 years old, 
secured his enthusiastic and devoted admiration. The 
Governor's friendship was further manifested in 1773, when 



33 

he gave Mr. Thompson a major's commission in a regiment 
of militia, and so placed him in a position of command over 
many officers and men of twice his age, and infinitely his 
superior in military knowledge and experience. It is a fair 
assumption that at his age his mind was fully occupied with 
his recent triumphs, his marriage and social position, his 
friendship with the Governor, and his military rank, all 
accomplished within about a year, to the exclusion of public 
affairs, in which he had never participated nor shown any 
particular interest. He did not see the intensity of the 
Revolutionary feeling among the people about him, nor was 
his knowledge of and experience with human nature suffi- 
cient to show him the normal result of an inordinate social 
attachment to the chief executive officer of an unpopular 
government. The jealousy and suspicion thus aroused were 
probably the primary cause of the hostile acts which soon 
followed. There was another contributing cause, but it was 
not of sufficient importance to have caused him more than 
the temporary inconvenience which a hundred others suf- 
fered under unjust suspicions which were soon cleared 
away. After his marriage Major Thompson became, of 
necessity, a farmer, and employed among others two men 
who afterwards proved to be deserters from the British 
army, desirous of returning to their duties but restrained by 
fear of the penalties for their crime. They were sent back 
to Boston by Major Thompson with a letter to Gen. Gage 
asking that they be pardoned and restored to their duties. 

Nothing else appears upon which any suspicion of his 
political principles could be based. But public opinion 
sometimes seems to need very little tangible foundation, and 
it was unalterably set against him. Envy, hatred, malice, 
and all uncharitableness pursued him from all sides. There 
was nothing wrong in particular, but he was in that position 
which is most nearly hopeless in practical politics; he was 
''in wrong." In the summer of 1774 he was summoned 
before a committee of the citizens of Concord on the charge 
of being unfriendly to American liberty. No proof was 
found, he denied the accusation, and was discharged. But 

3 



34 

the hostility of his neighbors continued to increase, and in 
November, by the advice and assistance of his brother-in- 
law. Judge Timothy Walker, he left his wife and child and 
secretly went back to Woburn, whence he wrote to his 
father-in-law Dec. 24: 

" Reverend Sir. The time and circumstances of my leav- 
ing the town of Concord have, no doubt, given you great 
uneasiness, for which I am extremely sorry. Nothing 
short of the most threatening danger could have induced 
me to leave my friends and family; but wiien I learned 
from persons of undoubted veracity, and those whose 
friendship I could not suspect, that my situation was re- 
duced to this dreadful extremity, I thought it absolutely 
necessary to abscond for a while, and seek a friendly asylum 
in some distant part. 

"Fear of miscarriage prevents my giving a more particular 
account of this affair; but this you may rely and depend 
upon, that I never did, nor (let my treatment be what it 
will) ever will do any action that may have the most dis- 
tant tendency to injure the true interest of this my native 
country. * * * 

"The plan against me was deeply laid, and the people 
of Concord were not the onlj' ones that were engaged in 
it. But others, to the distance of twenty miles, were 
extremely officious on this occasion. My persecution 
was determined on, and my flight unavoidable. And had 
I not taken the opportunity to leave the town the moment 
I did, another morning had effectually cut off my retreat." 

January 11, 1775, he wrote in reply to Parson Walker's 

letter urging him to return to Concord, * * * "As to 

any concessions that I could make, I fear that it would 

be of no consequence, for I cannot possibly, with a clear 

conscience, confess myself guilty of doing anything to 

the disadvantage of this country, but quite the reverse. " 
* * * 

But peace was not in Woburn. He was arrested there 
May 15, 1775, on the same indefinite charges. Again no 
proof was produced, and he was discharged. This second 



35 

prosecution was undoubtedly instigated by. reports from 
Concord, or from New Hampshire soldiers at Cambridge. 
Smarting under prosecution which his conscience told him 
was groundless, and discouraged by its persistence, he 
turned to the camp of Washington's army at Cambridge in 
the hope that his military rank might be recognized, and 
that he might be given a command in the American army 
which would reinstate him in public favor. Unsuccessful 
in this he endeavored to establish himself in the business 
of supplying non-commissioned officers' epaulets for the 
army, and again he found hostile influences too powerful 
for him to overcome. In his letter of August 14 he wrote 
"I have been driven from the camp by the clamours of the 
New Hampshire people." There was no other way to turn 
for justice. Civil Ufe and the military camp ahke were 
permeated with hostility towards him, and on the 13th of 
October, 1775, he left Woburn in company with his step- 
brother, and took refuge on board the British frigate 
Scarborough in the harbor of Newport, a Royalist by com- 
pulsion of the Revolutionists. 

As to the real allegiance of his heart and mind, I present 
these extracts from his letter of Aug. 14, 1775, to Rev. 
Timothy Walker, his wife's father: 

* * * "I am not so thoroughly convinced that my 
leaving the town of Concord was wrong (considering the 
circumstances at the time) as I am that it was wrong in me 
to do it without your knowledge or advice. This, Sir, is a 
step which I have always repented, and for which I am 

now sincerely and heartily sorry, and ask your forgiveness. 

* * * 

"I was peculiarly happy in having my brother Walker's 
approbation of my conduct. But notwithstanding he 
thought me innocent, yet he dared not appear in my behalf; 
he saw the current was against me, and was afraid to in- 
terfere. * * * 

''As to my being instrumental in the return of some 
deserters by procuring them a pardon, I freely acknowledge 
that I was. But will you give me leave to say that what I 



36 

did was done from principles the most unexceptionable, the 
most disinterested, a sincere desire to serve my King and 
country, and from motives of pity to those unfortunate 
wretches who had deserted the service to which they had 
voluntarily and solemnly tied themselves, and to which 
they were desirous of returning. * * * 

"But as to * * * maintaining a long and expensive 
correspondence with G(overno)r W(entwor)th or a suspi- 
cious correspondence, to say the least, with G(overno)rs 
W(entwor)th and G(ag)e, I would beg leave to observe that, 
at the time Governor Wentworth first honored me with his 
notice, it was at a time when he was as high in the esteem of 
his people in general as was any Governor in America, at a 
time when even Mr. Sullivan was proud to be thought his 
friend. * * * 

" 'Tis true, Sir, I always thought myself honored with 
his friendship, and was even fond of a correspondence with 
him, a correspondence which was purely private and 
friendly, and not political, and for which I cannot find it in 
my heart to either express my sorrow or ask forgiveness 
of the public. 

"As to my maintaining a correspondence with Governor 
Gage, this part of the charge is entirely without foundation, 
as I never received a letter from him in my life; nor did I 
ever write him one, except about half a dozen lines which 
I sent him just before I left Concord may be called a letter, 
and which contained no intelligence, nor anything of a 
public nature, but was only to desire that the soldiers who 
returned from Concord might be ordered not to inform any 
person by whose intercession their pardon was granted 
them. * * * 

"And notwithstanding I have the tenderest regard for 
my wife and family and really believe I have an equal re- 
turn of love and affection from them; though I feel the 
keenest distress at the thoughts of what Mrs. Thompson and 
my parents and friends will suffer on my account; and 
though I foresee and realize the distress, poverty, and wretch- 
edness that must unavoidably attend my pilgrimage in 



37 

unknown lands, destitute of fortune, friends, and acquaint- 
ances, yet all these evils appear to me more tolerable than 
the treatment which I meet with from the hands of mine 
ungrateful countrymen." 

"I must also beg a continuance of your prayers for me, 
that my present afflictions may have a suitable impression 
on my mind, and that in due time I may be extricated out of 
all my troubles. That this may be the case, that the happy 
time may soon come when I may return to my family in 
peace and safety, and when every individual in America 
may sit down under his own vine, and under his own fig- 
tree, and have none to make him afraid, is the constant and 
devout wish of 

Your dutiful and affectionate son 

Benj» Thompson." 

His talents were lost to America at a time when they were 
most needed. His genius for organization was driven to a 
foreign soil when it should have been devoted to the es- 
tablishment of a new government in the land of his birth; 
and all this because a few of his friends and relatives in 
Concord did not have the courage to stand with him, face 
his jealous accusers, and declare his innocence in accordance 
with their belief. As a people and as individuals we can 
never cease to regret that so unworthy motives as jealousy 
and suspicion deprived America in her time of need of the 
services of the greatest social scientist of his day, founder 
of a new school of social economy that taught the world 
how to care for the poor by teaching the poor how to care for 
themselves, the vital principles of which endure to this day. 

His genius was officially recognized by the United States 
government in an invitation in 1799 to return to America 
and organize the Military Academy at West Point, and he 
was at the same time offered the commission of inspector- 
general of artillery in the United States army. This in- 
vitation he was obliged to decline on account of his official 
obligations to the Bavarian government, and his labors in 
the founding of the Royal Institution of Great Britain. 
In appreciation of the invitation he left, by his will, all his 



38 

books, plans, and designs relating to military affairs to the 
United States Military Academy. 

In 1774, when Gen. Gage found quarters lacking for his 
troops in Boston, and sought to provide for his men by- 
building new barracks, he was much embarrassed by the fact 
that the carpenters of Boston and vicinity had joined the 
American forces and withdrawn from the city. Conse- 
quently he was obliged to send into the country for the 
necessary skilled workmen. Gov. John Wentworth, in a 
letter to the Earl of Dartmouth dated Nov. 15, 1774, says: 
'' General Gage having desired me to furnish some carpenters 
to build and prepare quarters for his Majesty's troops in 
Boston, the carpenters there being withdrawn, and the 
service much distressed; I immediately engaged and sent 
him a party of able men, which arrived to the General, and 
are very useful." 

This was in October, 1774, and the news of the sending of 
' the artificers to Boston soon spread abroad. Nicholas 
Austin of Middleton was suspected of being an agent of the 
Governor in engaging and forwarding the carpenters. The 
muster of militia which was held in Rochester the first week 
in November afforded an opportunity for these rumors and 
suspicions to crystallize, and the Sons of Liberty proposed 
to visit Mr. Austin in a body and ascertain the truth. But 
some of the cooler and more conservative among them, fear- 
ing hasty and violent action if this plan should be carried 
out by the people in their excitement, proposed that Mr. 
Austin be requested to meet the Sons of Liberty at some 
time and place to be agreed upon. Wise counsel prevailed, 
and the latter plan was adopted. The Rochester committee 
of correspondence notified Mr. Austin to meet them at the 
house of Stephen Wentworth, innholder, in Rochester on 
the following Tuesday, Nov. 8. 

On the day appointed a large concourse of the people 
of Rochester and the neighboring towns met to hear the 
case. Mr. Austin appeared, and after taking oath before 
John Plummer, Esq., gave a rather lame statement of his 
part in the affair. He testified that he spoke to only four 



39 

of the men hired for Gen. Gage, and told them to go to Gov. 
Went worth and speak to him; that he did not tell the men 
they were to go to Boston, although he suspected that to be 
the case from a remark the Governor had made; that the 
Governor told him the people would be dissatisfied when the 
affair became known, but, thinking it would be best, he had 
proceeded; that he told the men the general of the army- 
would pay them their wages. 

Mr. Austin was then forced to his knees in full view of the 
assembly, and compelled to sign and repeat the following 
confession and declaration: 

"Before this Company I confess I have been aiding and 
assisting in sending men to Boston to build Barracks for the 
Soldiers to live in, at which you have Reason justly to be 
offended, which I am sorry for, and humbly ask your For- 
giveness, and I do affirm that for the future I never will be 
aiding or assisting in any Wise whatever in Act or Deed 
contrary to the Constitution of the Country, as Witness, 
my hand." 

And he was not, for no record of any further action 
against him is found. He represented Wakefield, Middle- 
ton, and Effingham in the convention to consider the 
Federal constitution in 1788, and was a member of the 
House of Representatives the same year. 

Eleazer Russell, long time postmaster of New Hampshire 
and naval officer of the port of Portsmouth, read the Asso- 
ciation Test literally as an obligation to do active service, 
for which he was physically incapacitated. He also had a 
strong element of Quakerism in his character, and a sense of 
honor which would not allow him to do a popular deed in vio- 
lation of his moral principles. He explained his refusal to 
sign the Association Test in a letter to Meshech Weare, chair- 
man of the Committee of Safety, Aug. 17, 1776, in which he 
said: 

"On the 4th day of May last, Co" Wentworth, of the 
Committee for the Town of Portsmouth, brot me the As- 
sociation to Subscribe, At a time I was so ill as to be in- 



40 

capable of any thing. Upon growing better, I thot largely 
of the matter, and, finding my mind perplex'd, wrote him 
on the Subject; which letter, at my request, he consented 
to lay before the Honora''^* Committee of Safety. 

"Till yesterday I never knew but the Association paper, 
with my letter, had been in the Committees hands for more 
than two months: And now I find myself bound by every 
principle of Honor, Duty, and gratitude to enlarge upon the 
Affair. 

"It was, and is, meerly to secure the morality of my mind 
that I was reluctant to put my name to it — Solemnly to 
bind my-self to the performance of what nature & necessity 
rendered impossible, I started at the thot of. And, tho my 
health is mended, So wreckd Are my nerves that I could 
not do one hours Military Duty to Save my life. 

"The Article of shedding human blood, in me, is not a 
humor, but a principle — not an evasion, but a fact. It was 
received in early life, and has 'Grown with my growth & 
Strengthend with my Strength' — not a partiality for 
British more than Savage blood. For, al circumstances con- 
sidered, I think the latter more innocent than the former. 

"From the first Injuries done America by Great-Britain, 
my thots took fire on the Subject; And have been conceived 
& uttered, in one unvaried Strain, To the highest personage 
and down to the meanest enemy, without hesitation or 
reserve, So that I can challenge all mankind to impeach me 
to my country. 

"To enlarge on the matter in my own favor would be 
easy, but might appear indelicate, and to be Wholly Silent 
in the case wou^d be criminal. 

"Therefore beUeving my conduct is to be judg'd by 
persons of Liberal Sentiments and Sentiments of mind — I 
am, with the greatest respect, Honorable Sir 

"Your obliged & dutiful Hum* Serv* 

E Russell." 

James Sheafe, one of the fifteen men arrested in Ports- 
mouth, had no further trouble with the Revolutionists 



41 

during the war, and became United States Senator from 
New Hampshire in 1801. But in his pohtical campaigns 
he was severely reminded by Gen. SuUivan of his doubtful 
principles during the Revolution. 

Joshua Atherton of Amherst, an able lawyer, and a 
wealthy, educated, and cultured gentleman, was opposed 
to the war because he believed that the result could not be 
other than disastrous to the colonies, and that, in the end, 
they would not only fail to gain relief from any of the op- 
pression under which they labored, but would add a burden 
of debt, and be subjected to whatever vindictive measures 
might be enacted upon a conquered people. He suffered 
some persecution, but his tact and unfailing good-nature 
saved him from much more. He was in custody for nearly 
a year and a half, and in prison so much of that time that 
his health was permanently injured. After the war he re- 
sumed his practice, and filled the office of representative to 
the General Court, delegate to the convention to consider 
the Federal constitution, State Senator, and Attorney- 
General. But his reputation as a Royalist was always a 
bar to his gaining the full confidence of the people, and for 
the last 13 years of his life he was a physical and mental 
invalid. 

Among those who declined to sign the Association Test 
because they considered themselves bound in honor by oath 
of office under the Crown was Theodore Atkinson. A mem- 
ber of an old, wealthy, and aristocratic family of Portsmouth, 
he was connected with the Royal government in New 
Hampshire in some capacity, civil, military, or judicial, 
nearly all his life after graduating from Harvard College in 
1718. At the outbreak of the war he was Secretary of the 
province, a position he had held continuously since 1741, 
except from 1762 to 1769, when the office was filled by his 
son, Theodore, Jr., and he was also Chief Justice of the 
province, having been appointed in 1754. He had married 
Hannah, daughter of Lieut.-Gov. John Wentworth, and 
was accordingly a brother-in-law of Gov. Benning Went- 
worth, and, by marriage, an uncle of Gov. John Wentworth, 



42 

the last Royal Governor. Sabine calls him a Royalist, but 
a careful examination of the case shows that his sense of 
honor did not allow him to violate his official oath, and 
that after his office was taken away from him he main- 
tained a strict neutrality which was respected by his towns- 
men. 

In July, 1775, the Provincial Congress sent a committee to 
remove the records of the province from Portsmouth inland 
to Exeter for greater safety, as the defences of Portsmouth 
were not capable of repelling the British ships of war which 
were daily expected. When the committee called upon 
Secretary Atkinson July 4 for the records of his office, he 
refused to deliver them, saying that such an act would be 
contrary to his honor and his oath of office. In a letter to 
Gov. Wentworth describing the incident the Secretary 
says: "After an hour's moderate conversation, and without 
any heat, the Committee left me, and I was in hopes I should 
not have any farther visit from them, but on the sixth in- 
stant they came again and urged the delivery. I still 
refused as before, and told them they well knew it was not 
in my power to defend the office by force of arms; if they 
took the records etc., or any of them, they must be an- 
swerable. They then entered the office, and took all the 
files and records belonging to the Secretary's office, except 
those books in which were recorded the several charter 
grants of land, which were with your Excellency to take some 
minutes from. The Committee offered me their receipt, 
agreeable to their orders from the Congress, but I refused, 
being no otherwise concerned than barely as a spectator. 
They then cleared the office of all the books and papers, and 
transported them to Exeter, where they are (I am in- 
formed) to remain until further orders." 

On the second visit of the committee the Secretary made 
a written reply to their demands, which he filed in the ar- 
chives, where it remains to this day. 

"In answer to your request touching my delivery of the 
records and files belonging and now in the Secretary's office 
of the Province, I beg leave to acquaint you that I am by 



43 

his Majesty's Special Commission appointed Secretary of 
this Province during his Majesty's pleasure & my residence 
in the Province, and agreeable thereto I was Admitted and 
sworn into that office and had the keeping of the archives be- 
longing thereto deliver"^ to me and put under my Direction & 
in my keeping. You cannot but see my Honour and my 
Oath forbids my consent or even my connivance in such a 
Delivery, unless accompanied with his Majesty's superced- 
ent or my not being in this Province. Gentlemen — the Diffi- 
culties, I may say the Distresses in the Province, & indeed of 
the whole Continent are such that every cause of additional 
Perplexity need be avoided. I have. Gentlemen, no tho*^ of 
attempting to maintain the security of the Records in my 
custody by force — this I know would have no good effect; my 
aim is only to remove any grounds of complaint that may 
be against me for either Neglect or mal-Practice in the Ex- 
ecution of my said office. " Major William Weeks was chair- 
man of the committee, and in a letter to Gov. Wentworth 
dated July 10, 1775, the Secretary says, "Major Weeks 
seemed sorrowful that he was appointed." 

Judge Atkinson was at this time 77 years old, and re- 
spected, honored, and beloved throughout the province. 
He retired to private life, and no suggestion of slander or 
suspicion was ever brought against his name. He was not 
spared to see the outcome of the struggle, but died in 
Portsmouth Sept. 29, 1779. 

To introduce a very different and far less attractive 
kind of Royalist, let me cite the case of Major Batcheller. 
Breed Batcheller of Nelson, son of John, was born in Wen- 
ham, Mass., Dec. 11, 1740. At the age of 16 he served in 
Capt. John Burke's Falltown company in the Crown Point 
expedition of 1756. He was also in service the following 
year, and in the campaigns of 1758 and the Crown Point 
expedition of 1759 in Capt. William Paige's Hardwick 
company. His father, died in Brookfield, Massachusetts, 
June 10, 1765, leaving him some property, and the same 
year he went to Nelson, then an unsettled town, where he 
purchased nearly 9000 acres of land as a speculation, and 



44 

afterwards added to it large tracts in Marlborough and 
Hollis. Within ten years he had established a tavern and 
built the only grist mill in town. 

Breed Batcheller was an arrogant, blustering, profane, 
purse-proud man, a man of many enemies, and always in 
trouble. He refused to sign the Association Test, probably 
because all his neighbors did sign it, and because he feared 
the result of rebellion or a revolution on his property. 
When the news of the battle of Lexington reached Nelson 
the local militia hurriedly assembled and marched to 
Cambridge. Major Batcheller was the ranking officer in 
the town, but instead of taking command he hastened off 
to Keene, ostensibly to find out if the rumor of the battle 
were true. He followed his men to Cambridge and spent 
several weeks there, but merely as a spectator, as the officers 
and men refused to recognize his authority. His allegiance 
was already under suspicion. About the time of the Boston 
Tea Party he had defied public opinion by bringing home 
from Canada a quantity of India tea and offering it for sale 
in Nelson and surrounding towns. 

In December, 1775, he was summoned before the town 
committee of safety, and, though he appeared, he refused to 
answer any of their questions and denied their jurisdiction. 

Josephine Rugg testified that Major Batcheller damned 
the committee and threatened to kill the first man that 
should come to take him. 

Jonathan Felt heard him say the committee should not 
come into his house, but might stand at the door and talk to 
his hogs, and that he would be tried by fire and brimstone 
before he would be judged by the committee. 

Meanwhile Major Batcheller continued his tea-seUing 
trips, and complaints were made by various town commit- 
tees of safety to the General Court. The failure of the 
Nelson committee to lodge him in jail caused the town, at a 
meeting held Sept. 17, 1776, to appoint a new committee, 
and the major was soon brought to jail in Keene. His 
case came before the House of Representatives March 20, 
1777, and he was placed under bonds of £500 and confined 



45 

to the town limits of Nelson on parole. His i)ounds were 
afterwards enlarged to allow him to visit his lands in Marl- 
borough. 

This was altogether too much freedom to suit his fellow- 
townsmen; they protested most strenuously, and renewed 
their efforts for his imprisonment. Their petition for a 
new trial was granted. New evidence was introduced, 
upon which he was ordered to be closely confined until 
further order of the General Court or Committee of Safety. 
Witnesses testified that he swore that if a mob came after 
him he would stick the small pox into them, though he 
would not give it to a dog; that he would rather be hanged 
than come under an independent government; that he 
damned Col. Hale and the Congress, and said he would 
rather be tried by hell-hounds than by the committee; 
that he drank the King's health and damnation and con- 
fusion to the States. 

But notwithstanding his profanity and violent language, 
some of which is too vile for repetition, he was neither a 
Royalist nor a Revolutionist at heart, but was solely con- 
cerned about the effect of war on his property, as many wit- 
nesses testified that he said he would be very glad if the 
differences between the King and the colonies could be set- 
tled without bloodshed on either side. 

Although sentenced, he was not yet in prison. He was 
hunted like a wild beast, and lived for some time in a cave 
not far from his home still known as " Batcheller's den," 
where he was supplied with food by his wife and a kind- 
hearted neighbor. Tradition says that one day his pur- 
suers, being weary, sat down to rest directly over his cave, 
and so near that he could hear their terrible threats. Con- 
vinced that only by escape from the country could he save 
his life, he fled, so closely followed that he was obliged to 
clamber down the face of an almost perpendicular cliff 
by a narrow, winding cleft since called " Batcheller's stairs. " 
He joined Burgoyne's army, and was made a captain in the 
Queen's Rangers. His company formed a part of Col. 
Baum's force at Bennington, where he was severely wounded 



46 

in the shou|,der. He was sent to Canada with the other 
wounded, and afterwards returned to New York, where he 
remained until the close of the war. Then he went with 
the British troops to Digby, Nova Scotia, and followed a 
life of dissipation. In 1785 he fell out of his boat in the 
Annapolis basin, and was drowned. His wife and five 
children were left in Nelson in destitute circumstances, but 
were allowed a home and a small allowance by the State out 
of his confiscated estate. 

Dr. Eleazer Wheelock, founder of Dartmouth College, 
was accused of Toryism for no other reason than that in 
1775 he celebrated Thanksgiving at the college on the 16th 
of November instead of the 30th. The 16th was the date 
established in the Connecticut proclamation, which he re- 
ceived first; and as the New Hampshire proclamation had 
often failed to reach him until after the day named therein, 
he had been accustomed to observing some day in Novem- 
ber most convenient to himself and the college. "But," 
he says, "I soon heard there was a great clamor in the 
neighborhood * * * and that it was spreading fast 
abroad as though we were like to be all undone; that I should 
be speedily sent for to Exeter, 150 miles, to answer for it 
before the Congress as a Tory." The clamor was so great 
that he finally consented to preach another sermon on the 
30th. This only made matters worse, and the Doctor says 
"a doleful smoke we have. " To clear up the smoke he was 
obUged to call upon the committees of safety of Hanover, 
Lebanon, Plainfield, and Cornish, who completely ex- 
onerated Dr. Wheelock, and charged John Paine of Hanover 
with the responsibihty for the slander. 

There were other Royahsts quite as distinguished, as 
interesting, as pictm-esque, as any I have mentioned, though 
perhaps not as available as types of certain classes. 
Among these were Col. John Fenton, member of the 
General Court from Plymouth, who took refuge in the 
house of Gov. Wentworth, and was persuaded to come 
forth only by planting a cannon in the street before the 
house, and bringing it to bear on the front door; and Major 



51 

they were like their opponents, no worse, no better. They 
had no national, state, or other civil organizations. The 
whole RoyaUst party in the colonies was made up of in- 
dividuals here and there, of all classes, of all stations in life, 
who did not wish, for various reasons, to dissolve their 
allegiance to the Crown. A general definition of the Royal- 
ist of the Revolutionary period would be one who did not 
agree with the majority on the main issue of the time; and 
the fact of that difference of opinion constituted him a 
traitor in the eyes of that majority. We forget, as our 
forefathers did, that it was the Revolutionist, not the 
Royahst, who was seeking to overthrow an established 
government, and that the Royalist was the man who re- 
fused to violate his oath of allegiance to the government 
under which he had been born and had grown to man's 
estate. That the Revolutionists were justified we can have 
no doubt, but that did not deprive the Royalist of the right 
to hold to his own opinion so long as he did not interfere 
with the rights of others. When he did seek to interfere 
with the purposes of the Revolutionists by becoming active 
in the cause of the enemy, then, and not until then, did he 
become guilty of treason under American law. All the 
Revolutionists were traitors under English law, but they 
freed themselves from the operation of that law by their 
victory in arms. 

Viewing the Tory as one who opposed the government 
under which he lived in time of war, have we not had them 
in every war? I doubt if there has been a war in the history 
of civilization in which there have not been, in the territory 
of each side, some sympathizers with the enemy. To go 
no farther back than the memory of this generation, the 
Mexican war was opposed by the entire Whig party; there 
were Tories in the War of the Rebellion; they were called 
Abolitionists in the South and Copper-Heads in the North. 
In the Spanish and Philippine wars there were Tories, but 
they were called Anti-Imperialists. It is a great commen- 
tary on the change which growth, prosperity, and success 
have wrought in the spirit of this nation that the Royalists 



52 

of the Revolution were arrested, tried, and imprisoned, while 
the Anti-Imperialists were allowed to publicly give moral 
aid and encouragement to an enemy in arms against the 
government of the United States without the slightest 
molestation, either official or private, while that govern- 
ment went on its chosen way with calm and dignified tol- 
eration. 

It is to the credit of the people of New Hampshire that 
persecution of the Royalists never reached the extreme, 
never caused the loss of life nor permanent physical in- 
jury to any human being. There were no serious riots. 
Whatever abuses they suffered were due to that undercur- 
rent of lawlessness which exists in every community at all 
times, and always breaks forth in some degree in time of war, 
pestilence, fire, famine, flood, or any other great and over- 
whelming calamity. 

Henry Guy Carleton, in one of his plays, "Ye Earlie 
Trouble," a delightful play which was born in Boston and 
died there, caused one of his characters, an irascible old 
Tory, to say: "When rebels are successful they become pa- 
triots." There is much of truth in this cynical remark. 
All revolutions must begin in rebellion, in an uprising and a 
conflict against the existing order of things, an order which 
has so far failed to shape itself to the ways of human prog- 
ress as to create and foster a sense of discontent and dis- 
cord in the hearts of the people, which develops into 
appeal, protest, and finally war, when all other means of 
reparation have failed, and all other sources of justice have 
been exhausted. Then, if the rebellion is successful, the 
old order of things is swept away, giving place to new, and 
he who was active and helpful in the change is hailed as a 
patriot by the new government he has helped to estabhsh, 
and he is held in honor and esteem by his people. If a 
rebel is successful he becomes a patriot, but an unsuccessful 
rebel remains a rebel forever. 



PB 



111. 



o > 



Ni" .• 



■<^. 







'^6" 



' ^^' 



jfr^fi^ 




^^--^ 



:m 



-b V" 



,^ ■ 



'^-^^ 






-^ 



A 


















^1 



'^' 



A 



^. 



■^ 



.0' 



0- 



%./' .'> 






'^ 



I ' a 






> 



..^' 



;n^8.^fe^ 










V'^^ 

-"^^r^ 



"%, 



^°r^ 



^1 









.0 ^ 






< rr 



A. ^ 

, V , " ° , <# . 






.<^' 



^•^q. 



^3 



- -^ 












'tz.o^ 



^ .^>^', 



,^ 



HO, 



^■^ 



.O-t 



s « o ,U 



imf. 






.^ » r 



^ . . s ,0 






DOBBi Bros. 

LIBRARY DINDiNG 



>. 






y^^^. 



'i^^. 



-^0 



JAN -69 

ST. AUGUSTINE 



